Well I guess Gordon Brown is finding the money for all these free laptops via this:

 

 

Universities tell Gordon Brown: cuts will bring us to our knees

Exclusive Top colleges warn order to save £2.5bn will wreck 'jewel in crown'

* Jessica Shepherd

* guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 January 2010 21.51 GMT

 

Top universities accuse Gordon Brown of jeopardising 800 years of higher education, warning that they could quickly be "brought to their knees" by the government's spending cuts of up to £2.5bn, thereby damaging Britain's ability to recover from recession.

 

In a withering attack, the leaders of the Russell Group of 20 leading universities say: "It has taken more than 800 years to create one of the world's greatest education systems, and it looks like it will take just six months to bring it to its knees."

 

Writing in the Guardian, they say: "If government targets these huge cuts on university budgets they will have a ­devastating effect not only on students and staff, but also on our international competitiveness, national economy and ability to recover from recession ... cuts of this magnitude in overall funding will impact on the sustainability of our research and cannot fail to affect even the most outstanding universities."

 

The group, which includes Warwick, Liverpool and Glasgow universities as well as Oxford and Cambridge, say that ministers have failed to appreciate one of the "jewels in the country's crown".

 

"Perhaps the prime minister should consider what his international counterparts regard as being priorities … an investment of €11bn in higher education in France ... Germany pumped a total of €18bn into promoting world-class research alongside university education, whilst Barack Obama ploughed an additional $21bn into federal science spending, as well as announcing a decade-long budget doubling $42.6bn for science, technology and energy.

 

"There seems to be a greater focus on cutting the funding of higher education than almost anything else. The funding of the health service, police and schools are all currently 'protected' – which presumably reflects their perceived importance at the ballot box."

 

Wendy Piatt, the group's director general, and Michael Arthur, its chair and the vice-chancellor of Leeds University, warn that at least 30 institutions could disappear, and the rest face possible "meltdown".

 

The intervention comes amid accusations that the cabinet is split over whether to be more open about the need for spending cuts. Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's closest ally and the schools secretary, played down a split, but revealed that last summer he had argued the need to be more upfront.

 

The cuts to universities, a third of their annual spend, threaten to reduce a "gold standard" system to one that is "silver, bronze or worse", the top universities warn.

 

Piatt and Arthur said: "Sadly, the UK can no longer claim to be world-leading in many fields of endeavour. What a great shame it would be to undermine one of the few spheres, namely our universities, in which we do actually still excel.

"We live in a world where ideas, innovation and entrepreneurialism are key to prosperity and wellbeing. As bastions of knowledge and creativity, our universities are critical to supporting this agenda for the next 800 years. This is a defining moment in our country's history. If politicians don't act now, they will be faced with meltdown in a sector vital to our national prosperity.

"If government targets these huge cuts on university budgets, they will have a devastating effect not only on students and staff, but also on our international competitiveness, national economy and ability to recover from recession."

 

Speaking on the Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Arthur said there was little point in ministers saving the schools budget from cuts "if there aren't universities to take [school leavers] in". He said he recognised the government could not protect every area from cuts, but that universities were a "special case".

 

He said: "I think we accept as a sector that we have to take a share of responsibility, but so far higher education, particularly in the pre-budget report, has been one of the areas that has been singled out and we think that is a big mistake, particularly if we want to drive the economy forwards.

"We are an absolute cornerstone of British society; the part of the engine that drives the economy of the nation. We supply highly-skilled graduates to the knowledge economy and we provide ideas, research and innovation. We do have a special case to make."

 

In last month's pre-budget report, ministers announced they would slash £600m by 2013. This is on top of £180m the government asked universities to find in "efficiency savings" by 2011, and a further £135m asked for in the same period by Lord Mandelson, the business secretary who is responsible for universities.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that even deeper cuts of 12.3% over 2011/12 are needed for ministers to achieve their target of halving national debt by 2013. This would mean an extra £1.6bn of cuts to the science and universities budget.

David Lammy, the higher education minister, said the Russell analysis was "as surprising as it is misleading. We currently invest around £15bn in higher education every year. And the fact is that government's teaching and research funding – even after the £180m efficiency savings and the reductions in December's grant letter – will grow between 2009-10 and 2010-11."

 

He added: "I'm proud there are now more students than ever before in our history attending university. We maintain our commitment to the importance of higher education precisely because we know how essential its success is to opportunity and to our successful future economic growth.

 

"We are minimising the effect on the frontline by making savings on capital budgets, asking the sector for further efficiency savings and by asking the Higher Education Funding Council for England to look to reduce funding which will not impact on teaching.

"We are absolutely clear that a high quality student experience with excellent teaching is vital to maintaining the world class higher education we enjoy in this country today."

 

The Tory spokesman on higher education, David Willetts, said he could not promise to reverse the cuts if his party was in power. A Conservative government would encourage universities to reduce overheads by relying more on charitable donations, he said.

Steve Smith, president of Universities UK - the umbrella group for vice-chancellors - has said the cut would force universities to deny places to thousands of students. It comes as a review is underway into whether tuition fees, now £3,225 a year, should rise to at least £5,000.

 

After all why go to the bother of studying, working hard, taking exams and going to university, when you can be a lazy good for nothing and get a free laptop as a reward for not having a job.

 

I agree with that, the typical chav that is going to get these laptops would have no interest in educational sites or bitesize, it would be used for listening to You Tube, downloading porn, learning how to create viruses etc

 

If the laptops were issued purely for educational purposes and to improve literacy then I would be more in favour but I doubt Brown is doing it for those reasons, a laptop where all bar educational and news sites were filtered and the chav not having administrator permissions would work maybe

 

 

Yes but having Net access isn't just about studying you know. :rolleyes: They surely deserve some leisure time surfing or on Youtube or whatever they want to do after studying. Watching Porn isn't illegal B.A. unless kids are involved. You talk as if it is!

Edited January 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Yes but having Net access isn't just about studying you know. :rolleyes: They surely deserve some leisure time surfing or on Youtube or whatever they want to do after studying. Watching Porn isn't illegal B.A. unless kids are involved. You talk as if it is!

 

It is illegal to view porn if you are under 18... and the laptop are for KIDS to LEARN. And by learn I don't mean learning how to find a g-spot... and why should they all get leasure free when everyone else pays for it?

Well illegal or not a recent survey said most teenage boys aged 13, 14 or 15 and even younger regularly watch porn online. Not sure about the girls. :lol:

Edited January 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Well illegal or not a recent survey said most teenage boys aged 13, 14 or 15 and even younger regularly watch porn online. Not sure about the girls. :lol:

 

And? Lots of people illegally download music, doesn't mean it's legal.

This thread actually sickens me :/ The assumptions being made are horrifically huge - like, for example, everyone who earns less than £15,000 pa is a 'scrounger' or a 'doley' who's just getting free hand-outs here. I'm sorry, but this is an attempt to actually level out the information disparity which we have (not necessarily one I fully agree with - I would've thought a subsidy probably a bit more efficient, but nonetheless I find it hard to disagree with the principle), and classist attitudes such as the ones being peddled over and over again really aren't helping things at all. It seems that any bloody attempt to help the poor in this country just gets shot down because the tabloids have created this massive lie of 'the deserving poor' which has been swallowed by quite a few in this thread (and really isn't being helped by the existence of Crazy Chris - who I grow more and more certain by the day is just a creation made to generalise this stereotype).

 

And people here make it seem so easy to find a job! You can't help but wonder if any of them have actually tried in the current climate...ESPECIALLY for people who are under-qualified as a lot of the poor are in this country.

It is illegal to view porn if you are under 18... and the laptop are for KIDS to LEARN. And by learn I don't mean learning how to find a g-spot... and why should they all get leasure free when everyone else pays for it?

I'm sure you would much rather these children were out on the streets in gangs, given your views in the rest of the thread that would seemingly fit in perfectly with your idea of who these laptops will be going to.

It is illegal to view porn if you are under 18... and the laptop are for KIDS to LEARN. And by learn I don't mean learning how to find a g-spot... and why should they all get leasure free when everyone else pays for it?

 

Are you telling me you paid for a computer that you had when you were 12 out of money you'd raised yourself? Or was it your parents who paid for it? If it was your parents, then why are you more entitled to leisure activities than poor kids just because you were lucky enough to have relatively wealthy parents?

Edited January 12, 201015 yr by Danny

This thread actually sickens me :/ The assumptions being made are horrifically huge - like, for example, everyone who earns less than £15,000 pa is a 'scrounger' or a 'doley' who's just getting free hand-outs here. I'm sorry, but this is an attempt to actually level out the information disparity which we have (not necessarily one I fully agree with - I would've thought a subsidy probably a bit more efficient, but nonetheless I find it hard to disagree with the principle), and classist attitudes such as the ones being peddled over and over again really aren't helping things at all. It seems that any bloody attempt to help the poor in this country just gets shot down because the tabloids have created this massive lie of 'the deserving poor' which has been swallowed by quite a few in this thread (and really isn't being helped by the existence of Crazy Chris - who I grow more and more certain by the day is just a creation made to generalise this stereotype).

 

And people here make it seem so easy to find a job! You can't help but wonder if any of them have actually tried in the current climate...ESPECIALLY for people who are under-qualified as a lot of the poor are in this country.

 

Just because poor families can't afford something does not mean they should be automatically entitled to it, especially out of taxpayers money

 

It is an unequal world, someone can't afford something then tough luck IMHO

 

Many poor families can't afford cars, should taxpayers money be spent on giving everyone who can't afford a car a car ?

Just because poor families can't afford something does not mean they should be automatically entitled to it, especially out of taxpayers money

 

It is an unequal world, someone can't afford something then tough luck IMHO

 

Many poor families can't afford cars, should taxpayers money be spent on giving everyone who can't afford a car a car ?

That's different. There are loads of alternatives to cars - public transport in the form of buses, trains, etc. One form of transport ought to be subsidised as transport is often essential, and it often is. In much the same way, for educational purposes access to computers or the internet is essential nowadays. People are at an informative disadvantage in things if they don't have access to the internet, not to mention that a lot of secondary education relies a lot on computing resources. Indeed, for coursework in most GCSE and A-level courses, computers are essential as in a lot of cases handwritten work won't be accepted by the board. It's impractical to suggest that coursework can only be done in lesson times or at times when libraries are open (which often coincide directly with schooling hours anyway, and charge for computer/internet access past 30 minutes) as there simply isn't enough time. This is a way of leveling out the disparity...

That's different. There are loads of alternatives to cars - public transport in the form of buses, trains, etc. One form of transport ought to be subsidised as transport is often essential, and it often is. In much the same way, for educational purposes access to computers or the internet is essential nowadays. People are at an informative disadvantage in things if they don't have access to the internet, not to mention that a lot of secondary education relies a lot on computing resources. Indeed, for coursework in most GCSE and A-level courses, computers are essential as in a lot of cases handwritten work won't be accepted by the board. It's impractical to suggest that coursework can only be done in lesson times or at times when libraries are open (which often coincide directly with schooling hours anyway, and charge for computer/internet access past 30 minutes) as there simply isn't enough time. This is a way of leveling out the disparity...

 

hmmm kinda seeing more benefit in the idea now tbh, some valid points but they should not be new laptops and should be very basic, just enough to do the job, I am concerned about the cost of the scheme

Edited January 12, 201015 yr by B.A Baracus

That's different. There are loads of alternatives to cars - public transport in the form of buses, trains, etc. One form of transport ought to be subsidised as transport is often essential, and it often is. In much the same way, for educational purposes access to computers or the internet is essential nowadays. People are at an informative disadvantage in things if they don't have access to the internet, not to mention that a lot of secondary education relies a lot on computing resources. Indeed, for coursework in most GCSE and A-level courses, computers are essential as in a lot of cases handwritten work won't be accepted by the board. It's impractical to suggest that coursework can only be done in lesson times or at times when libraries are open (which often coincide directly with schooling hours anyway, and charge for computer/internet access past 30 minutes) as there simply isn't enough time. This is a way of leveling out the disparity...

Quite right. Times have changed and government policy has to reflect that. My nine-year-old nephew asked his Mum just before Christmas what websites she used for homework and was shocked to hear that websites didn't exist - his Mum was nine in 1968. Mind you, he was even more shocked to find out that we didn't get homework when we were nine :lol:

 

The fact is that the internet is now close to being an essential resource for doing homework. Therefore, it is only right that all schoolchildren should have access.

 

Craig made a valid point earlier about literacy and numeracy. Both have improved under this government although progress appears to have stalled over the last few years. However, it is true that there are still problems with low income households. But that is more of a problem with younger children than those being targeted by this policy. Both problems need to be tackled and the government should at least be given some credit for trying to do that.

As much as it looks like another freebie for poorer families, used for the correct purposes, it may do some good. However there is no denying that a certain element will abuse it, either from looking at unsuitable sites (Simon Cowell's home page for instance :lol: ), or just playing games. However what happens at the end of the year, if they can't afford to keep up the broadband. Do they sell it on ebay or the local pub?

 

Can't help noticing the big announcement made just before the election, so to me sounds like a simple ploy to shore up some votes from core Labour voters.

 

No doubt the proposed broadband tax on our telephone bills will help fund this, because Broon certainly has no new money to spend. Only time will tell if this is a good idea or not. For me the jury is still out.

 

I'm of the old school where if you had to learn something you researched it in books, not just google it. Takes out nearly all the thought process. No computers when I was at school, I was at college before I saw a real computer, and that one resembled the Hal one from 2001 Space Oddysey :lol: .

 

I don't mind some of my taxes going on education, as long as it is worthwhile, I just detest my taxes going to scroungers.

 

This thread actually sickens me :/ The assumptions being made are horrifically huge - like, for example, everyone who earns less than £15,000 pa is a 'scrounger' or a 'doley' who's just getting free hand-outs here. I'm sorry, but this is an attempt to actually level out the information disparity which we have (not necessarily one I fully agree with - I would've thought a subsidy probably a bit more efficient, but nonetheless I find it hard to disagree with the principle), and classist attitudes such as the ones being peddled over and over again really aren't helping things at all. It seems that any bloody attempt to help the poor in this country just gets shot down because the tabloids have created this massive lie of 'the deserving poor' which has been swallowed by quite a few in this thread (and really isn't being helped by the existence of Crazy Chris - who I grow more and more certain by the day is just a creation made to generalise this stereotype).

 

And people here make it seem so easy to find a job! You can't help but wonder if any of them have actually tried in the current climate...ESPECIALLY for people who are under-qualified as a lot of the poor are in this country.

 

theres a reason why the poor are poor.... they are either thick or bone idle or both! theres nothing wrong with being poor, nothing wrong with not being academically bright, nothing wrong with wanting a more laid back, easy lifestyle... but if you are in that situation you cannot expect the government to give you things others have worked for. it isnt 'classist' to subscribe to the notion that society isnt equal and if you want something you have to work to earn it.

 

there ARE plenty of low paid jobs going, theres plenty of work gardening for eg... i turn people away because my books are full!

 

Are you telling me you paid for a computer that you had when you were 12 out of money you'd raised yourself? Or was it your parents who paid for it? If it was your parents, then why are you more entitled to leisure activities than poor kids just because you were lucky enough to have relatively wealthy parents?

 

thats the way of life m8.... why should scummy chav parents kids get things for free?... what message does that teach them? wealthy parents kids have ALWAYS had more then poor kids... its a fact of life, we aint all equal but everyone has had the opportunity to work/better themselves. many born in poverty have worked their way out of it, they didnt sit back on their arseholes and accepted it as 'their lot in life'.

 

lifes what you make it, you want it? you work for it.

all schools are now online (under labour), students can all have access to the internet in a proper environment.

theres a reason why the poor are poor.... they are either thick or bone idle or both! theres nothing wrong with being poor, nothing wrong with not being academically bright, nothing wrong with wanting a more laid back, easy lifestyle... but if you are in that situation you cannot expect the government to give you things others have worked for. it isnt 'classist' to subscribe to the notion that society isnt equal and if you want something you have to work to earn it.

 

there ARE plenty of low paid jobs going, theres plenty of work gardening for eg... i turn people away because my books are full!

thats the way of life m8.... why should scummy chav parents kids get things for free?... what message does that teach them? wealthy parents kids have ALWAYS had more then poor kids... its a fact of life, we aint all equal but everyone has had the opportunity to work/better themselves. many born in poverty have worked their way out of it, they didnt sit back on their arseholes and accepted it as 'their lot in life'.

 

lifes what you make it, you want it? you work for it.

 

Agree 100%

 

But I can see a little bit of benefit to this scheme, while I hate to see spongers rewarded or chavs rewarded I think that if chavs get into the net and computers enough then they might spend more time chatting on Facebook/MSN and doing stuff online as opposed to mugging old ladies, smashing up bus shelters, taking drugs, hanging about on street corners making a nuisance of themselves and generally getting up to no good, if the net/comps is going to help get chavs off the street then the cost of the scheme will prove worthwhile via less anti social behaviour and crime

 

I am utterly against the idea of them being handed shiny new Dell's though, they should be given reconditioned computers that run Windows XP and can do the most basic of tasks

thats the way of life m8.... why should scummy chav parents kids get things for free?... what message does that teach them? wealthy parents kids have ALWAYS had more then poor kids... its a fact of life, we aint all equal but everyone has had the opportunity to work/better themselves. many born in poverty have worked their way out of it, they didnt sit back on their arseholes and accepted it as 'their lot in life'.

 

lifes what you make it, you want it? you work for it.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just found it ridiculous that LiamM said, in the middle of a discussion about whether poor kids should get free laptops, that "why should THEY get it for free", as if he would've paid for these things when he was 12.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just found it ridiculous that LiamM said, in the middle of a discussion about whether poor kids should get free laptops, that "why should THEY get it for free", as if he would've paid for these things when he was 12.

 

They as in someone like Liam got it for "free" off their parents who went out to work and contributed something to society to be able to afford to buy laptop, this is totally different this is spongers who contribute nothing getting something for free along with some working lower income families

 

I can see the benefits in less crime in giving out these free laptops but it is still sickening to see layabouts getting free gadgets paid for by the taxpayers

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by B.A Baracus

all schools are now online (under labour), students can all have access to the internet in a proper environment.

 

 

So what Rob, they stay at school until 9 or 10 pm and come home in the dark? :rolleyes: They need to do HOMEWORK online or at least type it on the PC then print it out. Homework is done AT HOME and most of it can't be hand-written. What teachers would want to stay til 8,9 or 10 to supervise them too? It's not like when we were in school Rob where we did it in text-books. There's no way my daughter could do her homework without home PC/ laptop and Broadband. Oh and printer too but they can print out at school but the queue's long so she does it at home. She was like a fish out of water when our BT BB was off for a few days. :(

 

It astounds me how some people here are so uncaring towards people less well-off than themselves. :(

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

So what Rob, they stay at school until 9 or 10 pm and come home in the dark? :rolleyes: They need to do HOMEWORK online or at least type it on the PC then print it out. Momework is done AT HOME and most of it can't be hand-written. What teachers would want to stay til 8,9 or 10 to supervise thm too? It's not like when we were in school Rob where we did it in text-books. There's no way my daughter could do her homework without home PC/ laptop and Broadband. Oh and printer too but they can print out at school but the queue's long so she does it at home. She was like a fish out of water when our BT BB was off for a few days. :(

 

It astounds me how some people here are so uncaring towards people less well-off than themselves. :(

 

the internet is only an up to date textbook. theres no reason they cant gather info off the internet at school and formulate it at home. then again, if they did more work in school then maybe they wouldnt need to do homework!

 

lifes what you make it chris, you might be born into a poor household with dumb parents, but theres no excuse for stopping there. im not uncaring towards people who have hit on hard times, im uncaring towards the idiots who stop where they are and moan about it. im uncaring towards a huge percentage of people on benefits.